Pigot and Banerjee, JJ.
1. We think in this case the view taken by the learned District Judge cannot be supported. It has already been held in this Court, in Norendro Nath Roy Chowdhry v. Srinath Sandel (Ante, p. 641) that the powers under the record of rights section do not include the case of a controversy and dispute as to the boundaries of the owners of conterminous estates. Here the record of rights must necessarily involve a determination as to which estate the lands, in respect of which this controversy has arisen, belong to. This is a matter which is not within the scope of the section. No doubt the Act has not provided as to what should be done when such a controversy as this arises in express terms. But we take it what was before the District Judge sitting, as he was sitting in this case, in appeal from a decision of the Collector in a matter of quasi-executive character, though, no doubt, conducted in a judicial form, and in a judicial character, involved the question whether the executive authorities conducting the record of rights were, or were not, under this section empowered to determine the question of boundaries between conterminous estates as to which a bond fide controversy existed. We have already held here that they have not that power, and we think that the Collector was right in the view he expressed, namely, that prima facie the controversy being bond fide, the disputed lands should be excluded from the proceedings, which, however, may continue as to the remaining lands. It is not for us to say whether or no steps should be taken to prevent the final winding up of the proceedings of the record of rights enquiry pending a suit in the Civil Court, if the parties whose estate is under the proceeding should bring one; that is not a matter for us to express any opinion upon. However that may be, the order of the Collector was right, and should have been confirmed by the District Judge, whose decision, under the authority cited above, is set aside, and the appeal decreed with costs.